Download Distributed Leadership - University of Exeter Business School

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP1
Richard Bolden
University of Exeter
Discussion Papers in Management
Paper number 07/02
ISSN 1472 2939
1
Due to be published in Marturano, A. and Gosling, J. (eds) (2007) Leadership, The Key
Concepts, Abingdon: Routledge. Publication scheduled for September 2007.
-1-
DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP
Richard Bolden
The concept of ‘distributed leadership’ has become popular in recent years as an
alternative to models of leadership that concern themselves primarily with the
attributes and behaviours of individual ‘leaders’ (e.g. trait, situational , style and
transformational theories). This approach argues for a more systemic perspective,
whereby leadership responsibility is dissociated from formal organisational roles,
and the action and influence of people at all levels is recognised as integral to the
overall direction and functioning of the organisation. Spillane (2006) suggests
that a distributed perspective ‘puts leadership practice centre stage’ (p. 25) thereby
encouraging a shift in focus from the traits and characteristics of ‘leaders’ to the
shared activities and functions of ‘leadership’.
The call for a more collectively-embedded notion of leadership has arisen from
research, theory and practice that highlights the limitations of the traditional
‘leader-follower’ dualism that places the responsibility for leadership firmly in the
hands of the ‘leader’ and represents the ‘follower’ as somewhat passive and
subservient. Instead, it is argued that: ‘leadership is probably best conceived as a
group quality, as a set of functions which must be carried out by the group’ (Gibb,
1954, cited in Gronn 2000: 324). As such, this approach demands a dramatic
reconsideration of the distribution of power and influence within organisations. It
isn’t simply about creating more ‘leaders’ (a numerical/additive function) but
-2-
facilitating ‘concertive action’ and pluralistic engagement (Gronn, 2000; 2002). In
effect, distributed leadership is far more than the sum of its parts.
That said, distributed leadership does not deny the key role played by people in
formal leadership positions, but proposes that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Spillane et al. (2004: 5) argue that leadership is ‘stretched over the social and
situational contexts’ of the organisation and extend the notion to include material
and cultural artefacts (language, organisational systems, physical environment,
etc.). The situated nature of leadership is viewed as ‘constitutive of leadership
practice’ (ibid, p.20-21) and hence demands recognition of leadership acts within
their wider context.
Such a perspective draws heavily on systems and process theory and locates
leadership clearly beyond the individual leader and within the relationships and
interactions of multiple actors and the situations in which they find themselves. A
useful analogy is given by Wilfred Drath in his book The Deep Blue Sea (2002)
where he urges us look beyond the wave crests (formal ‘leaders’) to the deep blue
sea from whence they come (the latent leadership potential within the
organisation).
In a review of the literature Bennet et al. (2003) suggest that, despite some
variations in definition, distributed leadership is based on three main premises:
-3-
firstly that leadership is an emergent property of a group or network of interacting
individuals; secondly that there is openness to the boundaries of leadership (i.e.
who has a part to play both within and beyond the organisation); and thirdly, that
varieties of expertise are distributed across the many, not the few.
distributed
leadership
is
represented
as
dynamic,
relational,
Thus,
inclusive,
collaborative and contextually-situated. It requires a system-wide perspective that
not only transcends organisational levels and roles but also organisational
boundaries.
Thus, for example, in the field of education, where distributed
leadership is being actively promoted, one might consider the contribution of
parents, students and the local community as well as teachers and governors in
school leadership.
‘Taking this view, leadership is about learning together and constructing
meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively. It involves
opportunities to surface and mediate perceptions, values, beliefs,
information and assumptions through continuing conversations. It means
generating ideas together; seeking to reflect upon and make sense of work
in the light of shared beliefs and new information; and creating actions that
grow out of these new understandings. It implies that leadership is socially
constructed and culturally sensitive. It does not imply a leader/follower
divide, neither does it point towards the leadership potential of just one
person.’
(Harris, 2003: 314)
-4-
In addition to extending the boundaries of leadership the above quote indicates the
centrality of dialogue and the construction of shared meaning within social
groups. As such, the concept has much in common with notions of democratic
and inclusive leadership (Woods, 2004).
Of the authors who have attempted to develop a conceptual model of distributed
leadership Gronn (2000, 2002) and Spillane et al. (2004) are perhaps the most
comprehensive. In each case, they have used Activity Theory (Engestrom, 1999)
as a theoretical tool to frame the idea of distributed leadership practice, using it as
a bridge between agency and structure (in Gronn’s case) and distributed cognition
and action (in Spillane et al’s case). Leadership, therefore, is seen an integral part
of the daily activities and interactions of everyone across the enterprise,
irrespective of position. It is revealed equally within small, incremental, informal
and emergent acts as within large-scale transformational change from the top. The
more members across the organization exercise their influence, the greater the
leadership distribution. This is not a zero sum equation where developing the
agency of followers diminishes the power of formal leaders but one where each
can mutually reinforce the other.
In practice, there are many forms that distributed leadership can take and the
literature does not generally prescribe one over the other. Within schools, for
-5-
example, MacBeath (2005) identifies six forms of distributed leadership (formal,
pragmatic, strategic, incremental, opportunistic and cultural) but argues that the
most appropriate and effective form will depend upon the situation. There are,
however, some serious challenges to the practical implementation of distributed
leadership. MacBeath (ibid) argues that distributed leadership is premised on
trust, implies a mutual acceptance of one another’s leadership potential, requires
formal leaders to ‘let go’ some of their control and authority, and favours
consultation and consensus over command and control. Each of these poses a
serious challenge to traditional hierarchical models of authority and control in
organisations and can place severe physical and psychological demands on
designated managers.
There are also serious implications for leadership development. Whilst the
majority of investment continues to be for individuals in formal leadership roles, a
distributed perspective would argue for the development of leadership capacity
throughout the organisation. This distinction is captured by Day (2001) in his
comparison between ‘leader’ and ‘leadership development’. Whereas ‘leader
development’ is an investment in human capital to enhance intrapersonal
competence for selected individuals, ‘leadership development’ is an investment in
social capital to develop interpersonal networks and cooperation within
organisations and other social systems. In his account both of these are necessary
but the latter is all too often neglected.
-6-
By considering leadership practice as both thinking and activity that ‘emerges in
the execution of leadership tasks in and through the interaction of leaders,
followers and situation’ (Spillane et al., 2004: 27) distributed leadership offers a
powerful post-heroic representation of leadership well suited to complex,
changing and inter-dependent environments. The challenge will be whether or not
organisations and the holders of power will be sufficiently flexible to enable this
to occur in practice.
References
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. and Harvey, J. (2003) Distributed Leadership.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Day, D. (2001) ‘Leadership development: a review in context’, Leadership
Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
Drath, W. (2001) The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. San
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Engestrom, Y. (1999) ‘Activity theory and individual and social transformation’,
in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R-L. Punamaki (eds) Perspectives on
activity theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibb, C. A. (1954) ‘Leadership’, in G. Lindzey (ed.) Handbook of Social
Psychology, Vol. 2, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 877–917.
Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership’,
Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338.
-7-
Gronn, P. (2002) ‘Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis’, Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 423-451.
Harris, A. (2003) ‘Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: heresy, fantasy or
possibility?’ School Leadership and Management, 23 (3), 313-324.
MacBeath, J. (2005) ‘Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice’, School
Leadership and Management, 25(4), 349-66.
Spillane, J.P. (2006) Distributed Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. (2004) ‘Towards a theory of
leadership practice: a distributed perspective’, Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Woods, P.A. (2004) ‘Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed
leadership’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.
Biography
Richard Bolden is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Leadership Studies,
University of Exeter, UK.
His current research explores the interface and
interplay between individual and collective approaches to leadership and
leadership development and how they contribute towards social change. [Email:
[email protected]].
Printed: 13 August 2007
-8-